create_issue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the responsibility of exposing behavior. It states the create action and lists required/optional parameters, but does not disclose permissions required, side effects, idempotency concerns, or what response is returned (e.g., created issue key).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the primary action, and then succinctly separates required from optional fields. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is a little sparse. It states what is needed to start invocation, but it does not clarify the response shape or operational constraints such as permissions or error-relevant behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers every parameter with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful required/optional grouping, but it says 'requires ... issue type' while the schema marks issueType as optional with a default of 'Task', creating a small inconsistency.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly identifies a specific action and resource: 'Create a new Jira issue.' The word 'new' distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_issue and transition_issue without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Create a new Jira issue' provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a new issue should be created. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'new' framing is enough for most selection scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.